On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > - Releases page on wiki [2] calls the branch ‘Security-supported’ (and it’s > not clear what it implies)
I saw this same thing yesterday when it was pointed out in the DVR IRC meeting [1]. I have a hard time believing that we want to abandon bug fix support for Kilo especially given recent attempts to be more proactive about it [2] (which I applaud). I suspect that there has simply been a mis-communication and we need to get the story straight in the wiki pages which Ihar pointed out. > - StableBranch page though requires that we don’t merge non-critical bug > fixes there: "Only critical bugfixes and security patches are acceptable” Seems a little premature for Kilo. It is little more than 6 months old. > Some projects may want to continue backporting reasonable (even though > non-critical) fixes to older stable branches. F.e. in neutron, I think there > is will to continue providing backports for the branch. +1 I'd like to reiterate my support for backporting appropriate and sensible bug fixes to Kilo. > I wonder though whether we would not break some global openstack rules by > continuing with those backports. Are projects actually limited about what > types of bug fixes are supposed to go in stable branches, or we embrace > different models of stable maintenance and allow for some freedom per > project? Carl [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_dvr/2015/neutron_dvr.2015-11-04-15.00.log.html [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-October/077236.html __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev